United States v. Carlock

• Decision Date: 11 April 1985
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 85-20002-02.
• Citation: 606 F. Supp. 491
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. Willard S. CARLOCK, Sr., et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana

606 F. Supp. 491

UNITED STATES of America v. Willard S. CARLOCK, Sr., et al.

Civ. A. No. 85-20002-02.

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division.

April 11, 1985.

Joseph S. Cage, Jr., U.S. Atty., W.D. La., Shreveport, La., Larry J. Regan, Asst. U.S. Atty., W.D. La., Lake Charles, La., William S. Lynch Sr., Counsel for Litigation Criminal Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, and Peter Sprung, Trial Atty., Criminal Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for United States.

Oliver "Jackson" Schrumpf, Sulphur, La., for Willard S. Carlock, Sr.

John P. Navarre, Oakdale, La., for Columbus J. Laird.

J. Michael Small, Kathrine S. Williamson, Alexandria, La., for Willard S. Carlock, Jr.

John R. Martzell, New Orleans, La., William B. Baggett, Jr., Lake Charles, La., for Mitchell J. Scimemi.

John E. Demoruelle, Kinder, La., for Houston Byrd, Jr.

C. Frank Holthaus, Baton Rouge, La., Glen D. Vamvoras, Lake Charles, La., for Monroe Brabham.

Alva Jones, Oakdale, La., for Michael Greer.

RULING ON MOTION BY DEFENDANT COLUMBUS J. LAIRD FOR INSPECTION OF JURY LISTS

VERON, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on the motion of defendant COLUMBUS J. LAIRD for permission to inspect, reproduce and copy (1) all records and papers used during selection and empanelment of the grand jury which returned the instant indictment, and (2) all corresponding materials pertaining to the selection of the prospective members of the petit jury that will hear this case. The defendant contends that he must have access to these materials in order to determine whether he has a potentially meritorious challenge to the jury-selection procedures actually employed in this case.

The decision in Test v. United States, 420 U.S. 28, 95 S.Ct. 749, 42 L.Ed.2d 786 (1975), establishes that 28 U.S.C. § 1867(f) grants both criminal and civil litigants "essentially an unqualified right to inspect jury lists." 420 U.S. at 30, 95 S.Ct. at 750 (first emphasis added). Both the Test case and controlling Fifth Circuit authority further establish that the trial court cannot deny access to the jury selection materials on the ground that the motion for inspection is not accompanied by an affidavit establishing a prima facie case of defective jury selection. 420 U.S. at 29 n. 2, 95 S.Ct. 750 n. 2; Government of Canal Zone v. Davis, 592 F.2d 887, 889 (5th Cir.1979). Moreover, the trial court cannot require a litigant to file a motion to dismiss for defective jury selection procedures as a prerequisite for gaining access to the materials. Davis, 592 F.2d at 889. Section 1867 guarantees this preliminary right of inspection for the very purpose of "preparation ... of a motion" to dismiss for defective jury selection procedures. 28 U.S.C. § 1867(f) (emphasis added). Thus, the defendant should be allowed access to at least those materials pertaining to the preparation of the master jury wheel and the qualified jury wheel for the Lake Charles Division. United States v. Foundas, 615 F.2d 1130 (5th Cir.1980).

Although "essentially unqualified," the right of access involved here is not without limitations, especially with respect to the list of prospective jurors drawn for a particular case. The Test Court itself observed that inspection under the statute is limited to "reasonable times," and specifically noted that an issue of timeliness of access was not before the Court. 420 U.S. at 30 n. 4; 95 S.Ct. 750 n. 4; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1867(f) ("The parties in a case shall be allowed to inspect, reproduce and copy such records or papers at all reasonable times during the preparation and pendency of such a motion." emphasis added). This notation by the Supreme Court is quite significant in light of the long line of Fifth Circuit cases which hold that the trial court may withhold the list of prospective jurors until the time of trial. See, e.g., United States v. Scallion, 533 F.2d 903, 913-14 (5th Cir.1976); Stone v. United States, 324 F.2d 804, 806-07 (5th Cir.1963). The Circuit has adhered to this rule in cases decided under the statute relied upon here, the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1862-1869. See United States v. Tucker, 526 F.2d 279, 282-83 (5th Cir.1976). In line with this authority to limit inspection to reasonable times, Subparagraph 5(4) of the Plan of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana for the Random Selection of Grand and Petit Jurors provides that "names drawn from the qualified jury wheel in criminal cases shall not be disclosed until the jurors have been empaneled by the Court." Thus, in accordance with the Plan and the supporting Fifth Circuit authority, the Court will deny the defendant access to the list of prospective jurors drawn for this case and to the materials used in selecting a petit jury from these prospective jurors until after the jury is empaneled. The defendant will have seven days from the empaneling of the jury to review these materials and file any resulting motions. See 28 U.S.C. § 1867(a).

Similarly, the Court does not find that the present is a reasonable time for access either to the list of jurors who served on the grand jury that returned the instant indictment or to the materials used in selecting this particular grand jury. Through discussion with personnel in the Clerk's Office, the Court has learned that the grand jury that returned this indictment is still in session. Revelation of the names of the jurors at this time may well "chill" the individual jurors in the exercise of their duty to investigate criminal activity in the district. The Court will therefore deny the defendant access to the list of grand jurors and accompanying materials until (1) the present...